Multiplayer unit selection and scope (feedback included)

[Xerxes the Great]

As someone who has been playing the multiplayer LAN games in both TOW1 and TOW2, I have a few comments and suggestions. Please take these as a true constructive feedback from a user who has been advocating this game to everyone I know who is interested in WW2 strategy games.

I believe the success of Kursk will not depend on how well the campaigns are put together. Rather, it will depend on how the multiplayer aspect of the game has improved. Of course a mission generator will help a lot but the true longevity of this game will depend on how robust and deep the multiplayer part will be. Without farther ado, the following are my feedback:

1) Very few maps. Need many more maps to expand the replay factor of this game.

2) Very few units. On a 2 player map, only a few tanks are available. At least 10-12 tanks and 6-8 AT guns need to be available to each player to conduct a meaningful battle.

3) Ability to choose your own units. Instead of a pre-determined bundle of infantry and tanks, let the players choose their weapons. Perhaps a simple point/cost system where each player can decide to spend more on armor or infantry depending on defensive or offensive plans. This is a MUST. It is as enjoyable to select your platoon as it is to lead them in battle.

4) Mortar units and mines. These units should be available to any commander defending a position and should be a challenge to any attacker wishing to infiltrate. It was the reality of war in WW2.

5) Optional reinforcement. Perhaps can be selected prior to each game. If selected, by accomplishing an objective, say capturing the village in the middle of the map, the player will receive the bounty there or certain points that can go toward choosing a unit type adding from the rear or HQ.

The current form of the multiplayer in both TOW1 and TOW2 is ubber simplistic with very few units and options. The replay factor is not much and the battles are very static due to lack of unit selection and lack of maps.

I will buy Kursk but I will only advocate to my clan if there are major improvements in multiplayer. Please do not lose focus of multiplayer. Players may forgive a weak campaign but not a lame multiplayer mode.

I truly hope Battlefront and developers pay attention to Mulltiplayer.

Over and out.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Good constructive points. I would agree with most of them.

The one point I have always found was though the inability to control the speed of MP games. Either through a pause or adjustable (preferably in game) speed settings would be grand.

[ShiftZ]

I believe the success of Kursk will not depend on how well the campaigns are put together. Rather, it will depend on how the multiplayer aspect of the game has improved.

You know, my favorite sim is steelbeasts Pro PE. I get lost on a constant basis planning and playing scenerios I put together in the mission editor with good friends. Of course any mission I make up no matter how bad or good can be used in multiplayer. Multiplayer is where it's at folks. If a game is being devoleped for single use then it is doomed. My wish is for the developers to pursue a multiplayer platform rather then single player. BTW Xerxes, Salute .

[Arzok]

Point 3 is already in TOW 2

Point 5 is a major point for me

[Xerxes the Great]

Point 3 is already in TOW 2

Point 5 is a major point for me

Azrok,

Point 3 refers to ability to choose your own units. I have played both TOW1 and TOW2

Multiplayer modes and neither offers this feature. Unless Centauro add-on has added this feature (I didn't buy Centauro since it was only a campaign mission and no multiplayer enhancements were announced). If in fact Centauro has added this feature in MultiPlayer, then please let me know and I will give it a try.

As an example, in TOW2, the only options/features available in multiplayer are:

1) Game Type (Domination, King of the hill, Attack-defend)

2) Time (nice to see infinity or no time limit added here in addition to regular 30 min intervals)

3) Command Points (static and not configurable by users)

If you select a map, say "River Delta", then the game will automatically select a set of units for you and your opponents. For example, Germany will get 3 Tanks, 2 AT, 2 half-tracks, and 3 infantry squads while US will get 4 Tanks, 2 AT, 1 RPG, 1 sniper, and 3 infantry squads on a 2-player "River Delta" map.

Again, the units are not selectable by user and the number of units available is simply too few to conduct a meaningful battle. It is barely a platoon size force while it will be nice to have at least a company size force.

My main interest regarding Kursk is the announcement of enhancements to Multiplayer part of the game.

Much obliged.

Over and out.

[Arzok]

You can watch here (it was with TOW 2 without centauro).

http://www.39-45strategie.com/Premiere-partie-en-multi.7180.0.html

First screen, then click on "order of battle", then second screen, where you can choose your units !

[Sneaksie]

1) There are ten maps playable in MP;

2) Unit number varies between missions from 10 to 40 units per player (it depends on total number of players);

3) In Kursk MP, you can select individual vehicles or squads before match from available ones. In addition, you select reinforcements before the battle (in singleplayer campaigns you usually can do the same);

4) There are several mortar types available, including self-propelled ones for Germans;

5) See answer 3. There are also off-map artillery, airstrikes. There is a catch though: calling for reinforcements and support costs Victory Points. You earn them by destroying enemy equipment and personnel during the battle (and by completing sub-missions in singleplayer). They are also used to measure your performance after the battle (so beating the enemy without calling for support will result in higher score).

[Arzok]

very good news

[ZenShadow]

From what I'm reading of Sneaksie's response: Kursk will be just like TOW 2 in scope. Which will mean that the weakness that's in the TOW 2 Multi-player (basically everything that was presented by Xerxes as weaknesses) ... and thus I sincerely doubt that I will be buying this game. It NEEDS a MUCH MORE VERSATILE MP. In fact, I can point out what element forces the decisions that weaken the MP. It's INTERNET. In order for this high graphics game to play at reasonable speeds (FPS) and otherwise be 'quickly played' (the curse of wargaming on the net). If ONLY companies would realize that there are TWO Online Modes: INTERNET and DIRECT IP connect. Of course, Kursk offers Direct IP, but it doesn't TAKE ADVANTAGE of the speed of Direct IP by allowing a different Multi-player 'experience'. In Direct IP you could (and should) be allowed LARGE ARMY SIZE / also you could easily modify the Map Generator to be utilized in the Multi-player games (on Direct IP). So, my fellow grognards... the Net has defeated our best layed plans...once again. Damn you Internet! Damn you I say!

[Sneaksie]

What do you mean by large army size allowed? For example, CC has legendary MP with just 2 players, 15 units max per player limitations.

[WillyPete2171]

As someone who has been playing the multiplayer LAN games in both TOW1 and TOW2, I have a few comments and suggestions. Please take these as a true constructive feedback from a user who has been advocating this game to everyone I know who is interested in WW2 strategy games.

I believe the success of Kursk will not depend on how well the campaigns are put together. Rather, it will depend on how the multiplayer aspect of the game has improved. Of course a mission generator will help a lot but the true longevity of this game will depend on how robust and deep the multiplayer part will be. Without farther ado, the following are my feedback:

1) Very few maps. Need many more maps to expand the replay factor of this game.

2) Very few units. On a 2 player map, only a few tanks are available. At least 10-12 tanks and 6-8 AT guns need to be available to each player to conduct a meaningful battle.

3) Ability to choose your own units. Instead of a pre-determined bundle of infantry and tanks, let the players choose their weapons. Perhaps a simple point/cost system where each player can decide to spend more on armor or infantry depending on defensive or offensive plans. This is a MUST. It is as enjoyable to select your platoon as it is to lead them in battle.

4) Mortar units and mines. These units should be available to any commander defending a position and should be a challenge to any attacker wishing to infiltrate. It was the reality of war in WW2.

5) Optional reinforcement. Perhaps can be selected prior to each game. If selected, by accomplishing an objective, say capturing the village in the middle of the map, the player will receive the bounty there or certain points that can go toward choosing a unit type adding from the rear or HQ.

The current form of the multiplayer in both TOW1 and TOW2 is ubber simplistic with very few units and options. The replay factor is not much and the battles are very static due to lack of unit selection and lack of maps.

I will buy Kursk but I will only advocate to my clan if there are major improvements in multiplayer. Please do not lose focus of multiplayer. Players may forgive a weak campaign but not a lame multiplayer mode.

I truly hope Battlefront and developers pay attention to Mulltiplayer.

Over and out.

again, I can't help but to think about the old Close Combat games. I don't mean to advertise CC, just using the title as a comparison. CC was way ahead of its time in so many aspects, especially multiplayer, that I'm surprised war gaming companies don't just outright make a modernized copy of it. Atomic had the formula nailed, everything was there such as multiple maps, a stratgic layer, responsive infantry, ect.

With that said, I agree with you on all points except that its not necessary for a battle to have 10-12 tanks and anti-tank guns to be meaningful. CC proved that over and over again! I feel Theatre of War Kursk is with out question the best TOW title yet, but my biggest gripe is with how the infantry are modeled. The tanks and vehicles in general are spot on in my opinion, but its the infantry that is keeping the game back from greatness. Infantry are still somewhat unresponsive, difficult to work with, and take too accurate of fire that wipes them out down to the man at long ranges.

Once infantry gets better modeled, then you will see awesome multiplayer battles. I feel that infantry should get as much attention as the vehicles do. Done properly, multiplayer is what gives games a long life. To this day there still is a very active CC multiplayer community. Again, I just don't understand why companies don't outright make a modern CC, it would be a best seller!

PS - I still would like to see a Strategic Layer/Map built into the game. Something similiar to what CC Invasion Normandy & The Battle of the Bulge used!

[Sneaksie]

I agree that Atomic had the formula nailed 99%, but note that making 3D versions of CC (GI combat and another one), transferring all gameplay elements exactly and, AFAIK, having access to CC infantry AI coding resulted in epic fail compared to original games so it's not that easy for some reason. This is an interesting question why.

My opinion is that in CC you're really restricted - you can't order individual soldiers around, and you could only guess what's happening in the house where two hostile squads meet. Your imagination portrays what's happening there for you, and no future CPU, AI code or super videocard would be able to compete with your imagination:) On the other hand, in ToW, where you can zoom to any soldier's face you see all the AI quirks clearly. Some people reported that playing Kursk in top-down (tactical map mode) they felt that their soldiers act smarter:)

[WillyPete2171]

I agree that Atomic had the formula nailed 99%, but note that making 3D versions of CC (GI combat and another one), transferring all gameplay elements exactly and, AFAIK, having access to CC infantry AI coding resulted in epic fail compared to original games so it's not that easy for some reason. This is an interesting question why.

My opinion is that in CC you're really restricted - you can't order individual soldiers around, and you could only guess what's happening in the house where two hostile squads meet. Your imagination portrays what's happening there for you, and no future CPU, AI code or super videocard would be able to compete with your imagination:) On the other hand, in ToW, where you can zoom to any soldier's face you see all the AI quirks clearly. Some people reported that playing Kursk in top-down (tactical map mode) they felt that their soldiers act smarter:)

Hey Sneaksie, thanks for the reply. Its rare and nice to hear directly back from the developers! I have always been a big fan of wargames, and when CC came out it floored me. The Theatre of War series brought that feeling back! Its nice to know that there are companies out there like yours that are dedicated to this niche market. I also realize that its a monster to program these games in 3D.

Like I said in my comment above, in my opinion you guys have the vehicles nailed. I hope you can contine working on infanty AI though. Maybe somehow script certain actions like "assult" better will help. I also feel that infantry would "play" better if they would moved in tighter squad formations. They just seem too spread out and dont seem responsive enough. Maybe you can add a "squad mode" where they operate as one entity. They could enter squad mode like they would enter/exit a truck...

These are just observations and opinions of a loyal fan. Overall, I think your game is great and I have already pre-ordered Kursk. Thanks for listening!

[Tartari]

My opinion is that in CC you're really restricted - you can't order individual soldiers around, and you could only guess what's happening in the house where two hostile squads meet. Your imagination portrays what's happening there for you, and no future CPU, AI code or super videocard would be able to compete with your imagination:) On the other hand, in ToW, where you can zoom to any soldier's face you see all the AI quirks clearly. Some people reported that playing Kursk in top-down (tactical map mode) they felt that their soldiers act smarter:)

this is true. Same thing about CMx1 versus CMx2...

[Paulverisor64]

In multiplayer would there be any posibility of a Co-op mode; where 2 friends could command their troops against a common enemy?

I've played several games of Company of Heroes where I could help someone else learn the game by being on the same side and help them play the game by looking over their army group.

I'm playing another game right now Hearts of Iron III where we are having fun planning the grand scheme of battle cooperatively.

There is another down and upside to this. Typically playing in Co-op it makes it necessary to have more troops to command (as in 2 vs 2). (2 humans vs 2 AI) The downside is that this counts lower scale computers out. The additional upside is that the scale of operations would be awesome.